Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar
Versus
B.S.Co-opt. Land Dev Bank Ltd.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1405 of 1994 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 17, 1999
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - ENQUIRY - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - RULES - INTERPRETATION - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES - SENIORITY - CONTINUITY OF SERVICE - SALARY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank, was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order on the ground that he was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry, that he was not paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, and that the enquiry was not properly held.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry as the department did not produce any witnesses to prove the charges against him. The court also held that the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, which prevented him from attending the enquiry. The court further held that the enquiry was not properly held as the enquiry officer did not examine any witnesses or introduce any documents to prove the charges against the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given a proper opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry? 2. Whether the petitioner was duly paid his subsistence allowance during the period of suspension? 3. Whether the enquiry was properly held?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry as the department did not produce any witnesses to prove the charges against him. The court relied on Rule 55 of the State Government rules, which provides that a departmental enquiry must be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and that the delinquent employee must be given an opportunity to defend himself. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, which prevented him from attending the enquiry. The court relied on the executive circulars issued by the government, which provide that subsistence allowance must be paid to a delinquent employee during the period of suspension. 3. The court held that the enquiry was not properly held as the enquiry officer did not examine any witnesses or introduce any documents to prove the charges against the petitioner. The court relied on Rule 55 of the State Government rules, which provides that a departmental enquiry must be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and that the department must prove the charges against the delinquent employee.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal order and reinstated the petitioner in service. The court directed the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry in respect of the same charges, if they are so advised, by holding proper enquiry and by giving adequate opportunities to the petitioner and by producing their own witnesses in support of the charges.
A.K.Ganguly, J.
1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the order of dismissal dated 29.12.1993 passed by the Administrator of the Bank as well as the Administrator of Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank). The said order of dismissal arose out of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was initially suspended by the order dated 16th August, 1989. Thereafter, charges were served upon him containing two charges. The first charge relates to disbursement of loan to one Sri Abdul Gafur, and the second charge is with regard to the disbursement of loan to one Nagendra Prasad son of Late Brahmdeo Prasad. Thereafter, another charge-sheet was served upon him vide order dated 4.2.1991.
2. The petitioners contention is that in the second charge there is only one charge and that charge is virtually on the same fact on which first charge is based. The petitioners case is that he sent several letters for supply of relevant documents in connection with the said enquiry but the documents in question were not given to him. In para 13 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner personally met respondent no.2 on 4.6.1993 when respondent no.2 directed the enquiry officer to supply the relevant documents to the petitioner, but even then the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner. In para 14 also the petitioner stated that he asked specifically for the following documents namely, (1) Enquiry report of Sri Shankar Prasad Nirala with regard to the payment of loan to Sri Nagendra Prasad, (2) The enquiry report dated 5.9.1989 conducted by the Senior Regional Manager, Muzaffarpur.
3. The petitioner also wanted inspection ot relevant files and also asked for D.V. files of the loan and the inquiry report submitted by the different officers with regard to payment and utility of the loan amount with regard to Sri Nagendra Prasad. The petitioner also stated that on 4.6.1993 he repeated his demands for supply of relevant documents and for payment of his subsistence allowance, and he asked for original D.V. file of the loan granted to Sri Nagendra Prasad, but the petitioners case is that without serving those documents on the petitioner the proceeding was decided ex-parte against him and he was served with the enquiry report and the second show cause notice dated 19.7.1993, and the petitioner was served with another show-cause on 25.8.1993 with the charge sheet of other case and the petitioner was asked to give his reply.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he replied the show cause notice in both the cases and in the reply the petitioner also asked for several documents.The petitioner also have grievance that both proceeding are amalgamated and punishment of dismissal was passed. The petitioner has categorically stated that in the said departmental proceeding no presenting officer was appointed to present the case of the respondent Bank, nor any witness has been examined on behalf of the Bank to prove the charges against the petitioner nor any document was exhibited but the enquiry officer appointed by respondent no.2 on his own looked and verified the materials and documents which has been made the basis of allegations against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer reached his conclusion just on a perusal of the documents without any oral enquiry and on the basis of such enquiry the petitioner has been dismissed from service. In respect of charge made against the petitioner on account of disbursement of loan of Rs. 9,000/- to Sri Nagendra Prasad, the petitioner has stated that the complain of Nagendra Prasad was found to be false on previous occasion, but when cousin of respondent no.4 was appointed the Deputy Managing Director (Finance) Cum Senior Regional Manager of the Bank only then the petitioner was allegedly found responsible in the alleged loan transaction relating to Nagendra Prasad. The cousin of the com
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
